This is mainly an editorial issue; the use of "URI" vs "URL" in the
current draft is, actually, pretty sloppy. There are some places
where "URL" is most appropriate since what is being discussed is
the "location" of the resource, and others where "URI" is more
appropriate, because any kind of resource identifier would work.
However, draft-ietf-webdav-protocol-09.txt is pretty inconsistent.
< URI/URL - As defined in [RFC2396].
> URI, URL -- A Uniform Resource Identifier and Uniform Resource Locator,
> respectively. These terms (and the distinction between
> them) are defined in [RFC2396]. Many operations in this
> specification are applicable to all URI types, although
> the term "URL" is used when the sentence is specifically